for what its worth: on nfl radio, gil brandt (who talks to the tuna regularly), says that after talkin to parcells, that hes sees it as a 99.5% chance that the phins will NOT take dez bryant. i know that doesnt mean a whole lot, but thought id throw it out there

As I've been saying for a while, Bryant has shown some immaturity both on and off the field, but to me not enough to not even really consider him...The guy has enough talent to be a smaller version of an Andre Johnson...

Maybe it's his agent? Whatever, hopefully this means Miami will rely on FA or a trade to pick up that needed #1.

As I've been saying for a while, Bryant has shown some immaturity both on and off the field, but to me not enough to not even really consider him...The guy has enough talent to be a smaller version of an Andre Johnson...

Maybe it's his agent? Whatever, hopefully this means Miami will rely on FA or a trade to pick up that needed #1.

I think you need to stop throwing around names like that. Comparing Decker to Jackson and Bryant to Johnson is, well, kinda ridiculous.Will Miami take him? I doubt it, but that's just because I think the defense is a huge need right now...more so than everyone's belief that a number 1 receiver is a must. Miami wins a handful of their games if not for the swiss cheese defense.

I also understand that today teams are throwing the ball around and it appears that in order to win you have to play basketball and keep up offensively...but when it comes down to it, teams win with defense.

Yes....defense wins all those games......BS. It is certainly part of a successful team....but let's look at the top teams currently in the running for the Super Bowl:

Saints......explosive offense....top flight passing game with Brees at the helm and a crop of talented receivers and a top tight end.Colts.....explosive offense....top flight passing game with almost no running game at all. Best QB in the NFL throwing the ball to a corps of talented receivers and once again, a top 5 tight end.Vikings....explosive offense featuring a top flight passing game with a talented fossil at QB, a top receiving corps that includes a fabulous rookie....surprisingly, it has been the passing game that is getting it done....the top running game hasn't been needed lately.Dallas....explosive offense......a top passing game, but this is the only team of the true contenders that really seems to rely more on their running game....nevertheless, hot QB at the moment with a better than decent receiving corps. Of the 4 top contenders, I see this team as having the best current balance between run and pass.San Diego Chargers......explosive offense.....top passing game with the QB that should have been the MVP, Phillip Rivers, at the helm. A fine receiving corps and the best tight end in the game.

I don't count the Jets in the mix. They have the best defense in the NFL, but will not be able to score enough points to win against the top teams left. The Chargers should win today....easily.

Notice that the Packers, who had one of the NFL's best defenses....and the Ravens.....who also featured a great defense.....are already eliminated.

_________________Philbin's countenance exudes confidence!1984 was so long ago...Will there ever be another rainbow?

Fantastic argument Frustrated, but I think this year is an anomaly. Unless this is just the first year we're actually seeing the direct result of all the bull crap changes the competition committee has made. I hate it..But look at the last decade's Super Bowl Winners:Steelers, Giants, Colts, Steelers, New England, New England, Tampa Bay, New England, Baltimore

Only the Colts faced a team with a better defense and won. Baltimore's defense destroyed everything in it's path. New England upset the high octane Rams, Tampa Bay shut down the high octane Raiders, the Steelers stopped both the high octane Seahawks and Cardinals and the one everyone remembers is the Giants defense destroying the unbeatable Patriots' offense.

Yes, in today's league, you have to be able to throw the ball, BUT it is the defense that wins you a championship. Can a defense alone win it anymore? (Bears couldn't, but Ravens did) Probably not, but a stronger defense will always prevail if complimented by an offense that can score (not necessarily explosive).Even the Colts run of 07, they had to first learn to win with their defense. The Saints were 8-8 until they could solve their defensive woes. The Bengals were a great offense, but they kept losing until they shored up their defense.

Here's my actual belief. Offense will get you to the playoffs, Defense will win in the playoffs. Look at the Jets as a perfect example. They weren't suppose to be in the playoffs but some fool(s) let them in. Now they are one game removed from the SB. Do you have to have both? Sure. If I had to pick a side of the ball to be #1 at, it would be D.

Here's my actual belief. Offense will get you to the playoffs, Defense will win in the playoffs. Look at the Jets as a perfect example. They weren't suppose to be in the playoffs but some fool(s) let them in. Now they are one game removed from the SB. Do you have to have both? Sure. If I had to pick a side of the ball to be #1 at, it would be D.

Good points.So in the coming years if the Jets offense hits their stride do we all head for the nearest bridge?

Fantastic argument Frustrated, but I think this year is an anomaly. Unless this is just the first year we're actually seeing the direct result of all the bull crap changes the competition committee has made. I hate it..But look at the last decade's Super Bowl Winners:Steelers, Giants, Colts, Steelers, New England, New England, Tampa Bay, New England, Baltimore

Only the Colts faced a team with a better defense and won. Baltimore's defense destroyed everything in it's path. New England upset the high octane Rams, Tampa Bay shut down the high octane Raiders, the Steelers stopped both the high octane Seahawks and Cardinals and the one everyone remembers is the Giants defense destroying the unbeatable Patriots' offense.

Yes, in today's league, you have to be able to throw the ball, BUT it is the defense that wins you a championship. Can a defense alone win it anymore? (Bears couldn't, but Ravens did) Probably not, but a stronger defense will always prevail if complimented by an offense that can score (not necessarily explosive).Even the Colts run of 07, they had to first learn to win with their defense. The Saints were 8-8 until they could solve their defensive woes. The Bengals were a great offense, but they kept losing until they shored up their defense.

Point is, a great defense is more important than a great offense.

Great post. But your last sentence, to me, is only true for the playoffs. If you don't have an offense, as we've proven this past decade, you will have a hard time making the post season. But once in the playoffs, your right, no defense= one and done, and a great one gives you a shot.

My god folks, it not like Miami needs to go out and pick a bevy of WR's. They just need to look at one possible stud WR. The rest of the draft can be used on defense and perhaps picking up a nice TE and some depth at other positions.

And like Dave said, take what Bill Parcells says about the draft 4 months away with a grain of salt. This is a guy that took Keyshawn Johnson with the number 1 overall pick in the draft.

My god folks, it not like Miami needs to go out and pick a bevy of WR's. They just need to look at one possible stud WR. The rest of the draft can be used on defense and perhaps picking up a nice TE and some depth at other positions.

And like Dave said, take what Bill Parcells says about the draft 4 months away with a grain of salt. This is a guy that took Keyshawn Johnson with the number 1 overall pick in the draft.

Actually he didn't take Johnson. But you're right. Miami just needs to go and and grab that one stud at WR. All our other money/draft picks can be/should be devoted to defense.

Go figure....the Jets spoiled my argument a tad.....but Kaeding and all those missed field goals were all that stood between the Chargers and a trip to the championship game....despite great play from the Jets' defense.

This team absolutely needs a top WR......until we address that issue, we will be outside looking in every post season. The top teams as of late are passing teams. The NFL rules favor the passing game. You have to be able to score quickly and in bunches to be a top team in today's NFL.

After that is addressed, yes......draft defense, defense, defense......

We have other needs that might wait one season.....running back and O-line depth.....but a couple of injuries there in 2010-2011 and we will be losers again.

_________________Philbin's countenance exudes confidence!1984 was so long ago...Will there ever be another rainbow?

Go figure....the Jets spoiled my argument a tad.....but Kaeding and all those missed field goals were all that stood between the Chargers and a trip to the championship game....despite great play from the Jets' defense.

This team absolutely needs a top WR......until we address that issue, we will be outside looking in every post season. The top teams as of late are passing teams. The NFL rules favor the passing game. You have to be able to score quickly and in bunches to be a top team in today's NFL.

After that is addressed, yes......draft defense, defense, defense......

We have other needs that might wait one season.....running back and O-line depth.....but a couple of injuries there in 2010-2011 and we will be losers again.

So wouldn't it make sense then...that if the rules favor passing, that you could get away with lesser talent at receivers and need to get better on defense??

Go figure....the Jets spoiled my argument a tad.....but Kaeding and all those missed field goals were all that stood between the Chargers and a trip to the championship game....despite great play from the Jets' defense.

This team absolutely needs a top WR......until we address that issue, we will be outside looking in every post season. The top teams as of late are passing teams. The NFL rules favor the passing game. You have to be able to score quickly and in bunches to be a top team in today's NFL.

After that is addressed, yes......draft defense, defense, defense......

We have other needs that might wait one season.....running back and O-line depth.....but a couple of injuries there in 2010-2011 and we will be losers again.

So wouldn't it make sense then...that if the rules favor passing, that you could get away with lesser talent at receivers and need to get better on defense??

That doesn't seem to be the case.The only team that seems to get away with that would be New Orleans.

_________________"Don Shula is the only coach I've ever met who can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." -Bum Phillips

Go figure....the Jets spoiled my argument a tad.....but Kaeding and all those missed field goals were all that stood between the Chargers and a trip to the championship game....despite great play from the Jets' defense.

This team absolutely needs a top WR......until we address that issue, we will be outside looking in every post season. The top teams as of late are passing teams. The NFL rules favor the passing game. You have to be able to score quickly and in bunches to be a top team in today's NFL.

After that is addressed, yes......draft defense, defense, defense......

We have other needs that might wait one season.....running back and O-line depth.....but a couple of injuries there in 2010-2011 and we will be losers again.

So wouldn't it make sense then...that if the rules favor passing, that you could get away with lesser talent at receivers and need to get better on defense??

That doesn't seem to be the case.The only team that seems to get away with that would be New Orleans.

The Colts throw in receiver after receiver (a lot of that has to do with the quarterback) and they do just fine. The Patriots for years could throw in whatever receiver (until their defense turned to crap). The Steelers can throw it around with the best of them and can get rid of guys like Washington and Randel El and not miss a beat.The Vikings run the ball and play good defense, and they seem just fine with an old guy at quarterback. The Jets run the ball and play good defense and they seem just fine with a rookie at quarterback.

I don't think it has anything to do with receivers, but rather the quarterback and his defense. We've got the quarterback (finally) now let's fix the defense.

The Colts throw in receiver after receiver (a lot of that has to do with the quarterback) and they do just fine. The Patriots for years could throw in whatever receiver (until their defense turned to crap). The Steelers can throw it around with the best of them and can get rid of guys like Washington and Randel El and not miss a beat.The Vikings run the ball and play good defense, and they seem just fine with an old guy at quarterback. The Jets run the ball and play good defense and they seem just fine with a rookie at quarterback.

I don't think it has anything to do with receivers, but rather the quarterback and his defense. We've got the quarterback (finally) now let's fix the defense.

Aside from the Jets (who are about to get walloped into submission by Indy), you're talking about the teams that have the best QB's in the game, some of whom are already widely considered among the greatest of all time. And the Jets have the #1 defense and #1 rushing attack in the game right now... all of those factors for those teams mean that often times quite a bit less is required by their receivers to win a game when compared to a team like ours.

_________________"Don Shula is the only coach I've ever met who can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." -Bum Phillips

The Colts throw in receiver after receiver (a lot of that has to do with the quarterback) and they do just fine. The Patriots for years could throw in whatever receiver (until their defense turned to crap). The Steelers can throw it around with the best of them and can get rid of guys like Washington and Randel El and not miss a beat.The Vikings run the ball and play good defense, and they seem just fine with an old guy at quarterback. The Jets run the ball and play good defense and they seem just fine with a rookie at quarterback.

I don't think it has anything to do with receivers, but rather the quarterback and his defense. We've got the quarterback (finally) now let's fix the defense.

Aside from the Jets (who are about to get walloped into submission by Indy), you're talking about the teams that have the best QB's in the game, some of whom are already widely considered among the greatest of all time. And the Jets have the #1 defense and #1 rushing attack in the game right now... all of those factors for those teams mean that often times quite a bit less is required by their receivers to win a game when compared to a team like ours.

Well that's what I'm sayin'...we've got a pretty darn good quarterback, and dominate running game, and some young talent in the defensive backfield. Let's sure up the front 7, and they should be pretty well set.

The Colts throw in receiver after receiver (a lot of that has to do with the quarterback) and they do just fine. The Patriots for years could throw in whatever receiver (until their defense turned to crap). The Steelers can throw it around with the best of them and can get rid of guys like Washington and Randel El and not miss a beat.The Vikings run the ball and play good defense, and they seem just fine with an old guy at quarterback. The Jets run the ball and play good defense and they seem just fine with a rookie at quarterback.

I don't think it has anything to do with receivers, but rather the quarterback and his defense. We've got the quarterback (finally) now let's fix the defense.

Aside from the Jets (who are about to get walloped into submission by Indy), you're talking about the teams that have the best QB's in the game, some of whom are already widely considered among the greatest of all time. And the Jets have the #1 defense and #1 rushing attack in the game right now... all of those factors for those teams mean that often times quite a bit less is required by their receivers to win a game when compared to a team like ours.

Well that's what I'm sayin'...we've got a pretty darn good quarterback, and dominate running game, and some young talent in the defensive backfield. Let's sure up the front 7, and they should be pretty well set.

I can see your logic, and I am all for making upgrades in the defensive front, primarily throughout the middle.... I agree it will help the entire team.But I still think this team needs to upgrade the WR position before we are ready to make the next step as a playoff team.....and it is the one position-of-need on our team where I would actually value experience over youth and potential.

As I said in another thread, I believe our team is second only to Baltimore in terms of desperately needing help at receiver for next season.

_________________"Don Shula is the only coach I've ever met who can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." -Bum Phillips

As I said in another thread, I believe our team is second only to Baltimore in terms of desperately needing help at receiver for next season.

I suggest you look at the receivers in Tampa, St. Louis, Oakland and Cleveland.

yeah, Cleveland I can't argue with, to tell you the truth I kind of forgot about them. They have little to offer at WR other than the situational role of Josh Cribbs. Part of the reason they suck at WR is because they don't seem to fully utilize his talents.

St. Louis definitely needs help. They do have Donnie Avery though, who at times has shown that he's worthy of being a #1 receiver... that's more than I can say for any WR on our team thus far.

Tampa for the time being still has Antonio Bryant, while he was extremely limited by injury this year, last year he was one of the most productive in the game. If they lose him, they're definitely in the WR basement with us and Baltimore.

and Oakland...... don't even get me started..... they've got MUCH bigger problems than WR. I still think taking Heyward-Bey over Crabtree is gonna prove to be a horrible decision. And even though guys like Schillens, Higgins, Shields, Heyward-Bey and even pass catching TE Zach Miller have shown ability......... with the inaccurate and ineffective JaMarcus Russell at QB, they might as well put you and I out there at receiver, Rich. It doesn't matter that neither of us could run an NFL route worth a darn when the QB is incapable of delivering the ball. Oakland's offensive philosophy is so screwed that they can even make receivers like Randy Moss look pedestrian. My point being, it's not so much the receivers fault in Oakland, and we can't know what their current guys are capable of until they go to a real NFL team.... put Larry Fitzgerald in Oakland's current offense and he will no longer be Larry Fitzgerald.

All that being said, other than Oakland -who dug their own grave- I can find a receiver on any one of those teams that I would trade ANY of our guys for (assuming Bryant can still play). ....and while Zach Miller doesn't technically qualify as a receiver, he's definitely a pass catcher that I'd trade any one of our guys for. As much as I enjoy what I see from guys like Bess or Hartline.... if I had to choose between them or Avery, Cribbs, Miller, or a healthy Bryant, I'd go for any one of those other guys.

_________________"Don Shula is the only coach I've ever met who can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." -Bum Phillips

St. Louis definitely needs help. They do have Donnie Avery though, who at times has shown that he's worthy of being a #1 receiver... that's more than I can say for any WR on our team thus far.

Tampa for the time being still has Antonio Bryant, while he was extremely limited by injury this year, last year he was one of the most productive in the game. If they lose him, they're definitely in the WR basement with us and Baltimore.

and Oakland...... don't even get me started..... they've got MUCH bigger problems than WR. I still think taking Heyward-Bey over Crabtree is gonna prove to be a horrible decision. And even though guys like Schillens, Higgins, Shields, Heyward-Bey and even pass catching TE Zach Miller have shown ability......... with the inaccurate and ineffective JaMarcus Russell at QB, they might as well put you and I out there at receiver, Rich. It doesn't matter that neither of us could run an NFL route worth a darn when the QB is incapable of delivering the ball. Oakland's offensive philosophy is so screwed that they can even make receivers like Randy Moss look pedestrian. My point being, it's not so much the receivers fault in Oakland, and we can't know what their current guys are capable of until they go to a real NFL team.... put Larry Fitzgerald in Oakland's current offense and he will no longer be Larry Fitzgerald.

All that being said, other than Oakland -who dug their own grave- I can find a receiver on any one of those teams that I would trade ANY of our guys for (assuming Bryant can still play). ....and while Zach Miller doesn't technically qualify as a receiver, he's definitely a pass catcher that I'd trade any one of our guys for. As much as I enjoy what I see from guys like Bess or Hartline.... if I had to choose between them or Avery, Cribbs, Miller, or a healthy Bryant, I'd go for any one of those other guys.

That's what I call "grass is greener" syndrome. You barely watch those guys play, but you see them put up some numbers and assume they are better than what we have.

I figured you'd bring up their stats this past year. If you want to compare stats, compare them over some time, and certainly not with the horrendous show that went on in Cleveland.Robiskie and Massaquoi were rookies...and I don't know how many times I've read around here about how awful so and so did their rookie year and look at how good they are now.

With Stuckey you left out the 11 catches, 120 yards, and 1 TD he had in 3 games with the Jets. The previous year with the Jets he had 32 grabs for 3 scores.Mike Furrey had a two year stretch in Detroit where he had 159 catches, 1750 yards, 7 TD's. Combine all of Miami's receivers stats this past year, and you get 195 catches, 2270, 6 TD's. Almost identical.

All of Cleveland's receivers are over 6 foot, including Robiskie and Massaquoi at 6'3" and 6'2". Furrey, Massaquoi, and Robiskie are all over 200 lbs. Miami doesn't have one receiver that is 200lbs, and only Camarillo comes close at 190.

Stuckey and Furrey's production are better than all of Miami's receivers, and they are certainly a much more physical group.

Throwing last year's stats at me only shows just how anemic the Browns were on offense last year, not how bad the receiving corps is.

I figured you'd bring up their stats this past year. If you want to compare stats, compare them over some time, and certainly not with the horrendous show that went on in Cleveland.Robiskie and Massaquoi were rookies...and I don't know how many times I've read around here about how awful so and so did their rookie year and look at how good they are now.

With Stuckey you left out the 11 catches, 120 yards, and 1 TD he had in 3 games with the Jets. The previous year with the Jets he had 32 grabs for 3 scores.Mike Furrey had a two year stretch in Detroit where he had 159 catches, 1750 yards, 7 TD's. Combine all of Miami's receivers stats this past year, and you get 195 catches, 2270, 6 TD's. Almost identical.

All of Cleveland's receivers are over 6 foot, including Robiskie and Massaquoi at 6'3" and 6'2". Furrey, Massaquoi, and Robiskie are all over 200 lbs. Miami doesn't have one receiver that is 200lbs, and only Camarillo comes close at 190.

Stuckey and Furrey's production are better than all of Miami's receivers, and they are certainly a much more physical group.

Throwing last year's stats at me only shows just how anemic the Browns were on offense last year, not how bad the receiving corps is.

Using what guys did on other teams and in previous years doesn't help your argument whatsoever. If you want to look at past years then look at past seasons for Ginn and Camarillo in which they were more productive than last year. Robiskie is a rookie? So is Hartline. I guess it is an ok excuse for another team's receiver to be a rookie but it doesn't factor in when he is a Dolphin?

Hartline had 31 catches for 506 yards and 3 TDs as a situation player for the Dolphins.

Massaquoi started 11 games and had 3 more catches 118 more yards and the same number of touchdowns.

Hartline as a 3rd or 4th receiver was almost as productive as the Browns #1 receiver, but you'd take their receiving corps over ours?

St. Louis definitely needs help. They do have Donnie Avery though, who at times has shown that he's worthy of being a #1 receiver... that's more than I can say for any WR on our team thus far.

Tampa for the time being still has Antonio Bryant, while he was extremely limited by injury this year, last year he was one of the most productive in the game. If they lose him, they're definitely in the WR basement with us and Baltimore.

and Oakland...... don't even get me started..... they've got MUCH bigger problems than WR. I still think taking Heyward-Bey over Crabtree is gonna prove to be a horrible decision. And even though guys like Schillens, Higgins, Shields, Heyward-Bey and even pass catching TE Zach Miller have shown ability......... with the inaccurate and ineffective JaMarcus Russell at QB, they might as well put you and I out there at receiver, Rich. It doesn't matter that neither of us could run an NFL route worth a darn when the QB is incapable of delivering the ball. Oakland's offensive philosophy is so screwed that they can even make receivers like Randy Moss look pedestrian. My point being, it's not so much the receivers fault in Oakland, and we can't know what their current guys are capable of until they go to a real NFL team.... put Larry Fitzgerald in Oakland's current offense and he will no longer be Larry Fitzgerald.

All that being said, other than Oakland -who dug their own grave- I can find a receiver on any one of those teams that I would trade ANY of our guys for (assuming Bryant can still play). ....and while Zach Miller doesn't technically qualify as a receiver, he's definitely a pass catcher that I'd trade any one of our guys for. As much as I enjoy what I see from guys like Bess or Hartline.... if I had to choose between them or Avery, Cribbs, Miller, or a healthy Bryant, I'd go for any one of those other guys.

That's what I call "grass is greener" syndrome. You barely watch those guys play, but you see them put up some numbers and assume they are better than what we have.

Meh, I dunno.... sometimes the grass actually is greener. We're all entitled to our opinions, and mine is that Bess and Hartline are the only receivers on the team worth keeping long term, other than maybe a project like Patrick Turner. I've chosen to give up on Ginn as anything more than a return man and a situational hail-mary type of receiver. I'll take the consistency of a guy like Bess over the speed of Ginn a.k.a. Mr. Where's-the-Sideline? anyday.Like I said, while all of these receiving corps obviously suck, they all have a pass-catcher that I like as much or better than our best guy. Remember you can't leave Cribbs out of the receiving equation in Cleveland. Guys like Cribbs and Avery = some pretty green grass in my opinion.

We can sit here and debate which team sucks the hardest at receiver until we're blue in the face. At the end of the day, we're still gonna be one of the teams with the most desperate need at WR this offseason, and that truly is my point buried in all of the previous speculation.

_________________"Don Shula is the only coach I've ever met who can take his'n and beat your'n, and then take your'n and beat his'n." -Bum Phillips